T1B

Hey mike, I'll have you know that the connecticut river valley is home to some of the finest shade tobacco grown anywhere. I pass lots of that shit on the way to work. So, yes, we new englanders do have something to do with tobacco. Not as much as algore, though.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Outstanding point-by-point rebuttal.

There was a point in there to rebut? I must have missed it among all of the lies, evasions and distortions.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Bri's statement trying to equate the government forbidding pot use/drug use in your home with the aformentioned smoking bans in homes ridiculous, since the government is, in the latter cases, banning activities that are illegal ANYWHERE.

Mike, that's exactly what I was foreshadowing with that post. A total ban on tobacco is only a matter of time. As soon as the tax revenue becomes inconsequential to the equation, you can bet the DEA will be classifying nicotine as a Schedule 1 drug.

There is no more "government intrusion" in banning pot smoking in the home than there is with banning counterfeiting, heroin use and sale, kidnapping, etc. I disagree with the government's policy on outlawing pot, but to claim that it's somehow being inconsistant in not allowing it within your own home is ludicrous.

I wasn't really directing that at you. I know your libertarian views well enough to know that you're not down with much government intervention at all.

That being said, if one accepts that the government has the moral authority to completely ban the use of some drugs, how can you possibly have any standing to argue that the same government does not have the authority to limit (even within the confines of your own home) the use of another? To me it simply doesn't follow.

Diogenes wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Outstanding point-by-point rebuttal.

Nice.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Outstanding point-by-point rebuttal.

There was a point in there to rebut? I must have missed it among all of the lies, evasions and distortions.

Epic.

Nice job, Diaphanous. Way to cement your position on the board right next to KFC Paul.

Diogenes wrote:
Yawwwwwn.

Next?

With all due or undue respect, you're really out of your element here. You couldn't have waved a brighter, bigger, whiter flag with that response.

PSUFAN wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
Yawwwwwn.

Next?

With all due or undue respect, you're really out of your element here. You couldn't have waved a brighter, bigger, whiter flag with that response.

What I said still stands.

There was a point in there to rebut? I must have missed it among all of the lies, evasions and distortions.

Diogenes wrote:So the ignore function does work.

Outstanding.

Really? What exactly is that you were ignoring? How do you know that there was something to ignore? Fucking moron.

BSmack wrote:A total ban on tobacco is only a matter of time. As soon as the tax revenue becomes inconsequential to the equation, you can bet the DEA will be classifying nicotine as a Schedule 1 drug.

Too late for that.

BSmack wrote:if one accepts that the government has the moral authority to completely ban the use of some drugs, how can you possibly have any standing to argue that the same government does not have the authority to limit (even within the confines of your own home) the use of another? To me it simply doesn't follow.

Exactly.

The government has no "moral authority" to do a lot of things, including legal consistencies and common sense, obviously.

RadioFan wrote:

BSmack wrote:A total ban on tobacco is only a matter of time. As soon as the tax revenue becomes inconsequential to the equation, you can bet the DEA will be classifying nicotine as a Schedule 1 drug.

Too late for that.

Oh yea? Just wait until the number of smokers falls to under 10% of the population.

BSmack wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

BSmack wrote:A total ban on tobacco is only a matter of time. As soon as the tax revenue becomes inconsequential to the equation, you can bet the DEA will be classifying nicotine as a Schedule 1 drug.

Too late for that.

Oh yea? Just wait until the number of smokers falls to under 10% of the population.

so long as there are tax dollars to be had, the fed whores are not going to turn away one of their best johns.

also, those jackbooted thugs at BATF need something to do.

War Wagon wrote:
They're trying to ban smoking from every public place in KC and every surrounding suburb. The smoking nazi's won't be satisfied until nobody can light up in any bar, restaurant, bowling alley, or casino anywhere.

Smoke Nazi checking in. The wife and I can't stand to be in the smoke, and unless you're a non-smoker, you're clueless as to how your habit affects those that don't. We can't even go the casinos beacuse it's a fucking gas chamber. Exagerated - Not so much. Last time we suffered through it to be with some friends who wanted to go, we both had sore throats and cough the day afterwards. Just not worth it to us to be in that shit.

Now here's the conundrum, another good friend's wife manages a Tanner's. They were out in Lee Summit when the smoking ban went in. The business dropped off to the point, they shut it down and moved to Blue Springs. Whoever said let the Tavern owner decide is spot on. If the business is all smokers, then who are we to close them down.

It's ponderous - when studies show the vast population don't smoke, that the nicotine fiends have the clout in the live music establishments.
Last time we visited the Tanners in Blue springs, to see our freinds, it was an all <30 crowd. Fucking stupid, but is what it is.

Meanwhile, they tax the shit out cigs and use that cash to fund any manner of pet projects while saying that it's going for smokers health care. Yeah, right. I pay for my own damn health care costs.

Short Sighted Wagon. It's when you're done working and on Medicare that you'll be using more than you'r allotment of resources.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Bri's statement trying to equate the government forbidding pot use/drug use in your home with the aformentioned smoking bans in homes ridiculous, since the government is, in the latter cases, banning activities that are illegal ANYWHERE. There is no more "government intrusion" in banning pot smoking in the home than there is with banning counterfeiting, heroin use and sale, kidnapping, etc. I disagree with the government's policy on outlawing pot, but to claim that it's somehow being inconsistant in not allowing it within your own home is ludicrous.

Are you trying to say that banning smoking in bars is more restrictive than outlawing pot?

Kierland wrote:Are you trying to say that banning smoking in bars is more restrictive than outlawing pot?

They're both unwarranted government intrusions into private citizens' choices.

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:Oh yea? Just wait until the number of smokers falls to under 10% of the population.

so long as there are tax dollars to be had, the fed whores are not going to turn away one of their best johns.

also, those jackbooted thugs at BATF need something to do.

Simple supply side economics dictates that as tobacco taxes and tobacco regulation increase, the tobacco related economy will continue to decrease. Taken to it's logical conclusion, one has to presume that there will come a time when businesses will no longer find tobacco to be a profitable business.

Already, here in Rochester, the Wegmans supermarket chain has stopped selling all tobacco products. They claim they're just being a "good corporate citizen", but we all know it is because tobacco has become more of a pain than it is worth for them to sell. And that's with 20% of the population still smoking. Just imagine what businesses will do when there's only 5 or 10 percent of the population to sell to.

It's only a matter of time before they're outlawed.

Grocery stores will pull the good corporate citizen PC bullshit. Also, folks don't go to the grocery store to buy smokes. Convenient stores on the other hand will continue to sell them. They get a decent profit, plus, they get smokers in the store so they can sell them a 14 dollar jar of mayo.

I didn't read all of this but after a few posts I feel I got the gist. I'm not a smoker. The biggest problem I have w smokers is their contention that "Hey, I gotta die of something. This is my choice". Well guess what. It's your family members that have to sacrifice the heartache, time, and financial burden to care for you weezing, sufferring, cancer addled, stupid ass after a lifetime of self indulgance. Caring for a lifelong smoker w a diseased heart and lungs is a fucking full time job. And it's not always quick. Some of you motherfuckers can linger for years. If it's your right to smoke, it should be our right to shoot you like you were a fucking horse w a broken leg.

^Gets it

If it's your right to smoke, it should be our right to shoot you like you were a fucking horse w a broken leg.

You speak as if you have some experience with dealing with family members who've smoked. So is that what you wanted to do to dear old Dad?

Go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious little prick.

Mace wrote:

Havana Sugar King wrote:I didn't read all of this but after a few posts I feel I got the gist. I'm not a smoker. The biggest problem I have w smokers is their contention that "Hey, I gotta die of something. This is my choice". Well guess what. It's your family members that have to sacrifice the heartache, time, and financial burden to care for you weezing, sufferring, cancer addled, stupid ass after a lifetime of self indulgance. Caring for a lifelong smoker w a diseased heart and lungs is a fucking full time job. And it's not always quick. Some of you motherfuckers can linger for years. If it's your right to smoke, it should be our right to shoot you like you were a fucking horse w a broken leg.

Why don't you either shoot yourself instead or just STFU?

Mace

I take it you're not this board's best and brightest.

War Wagon wrote:

If it's your right to smoke, it should be our right to shoot you like you were a fucking horse w a broken leg.

You speak as if you have some experience with dealing with family members who've smoked. So is that what you wanted to do to dear old Dad?

Go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious little prick.

No, actually I've wanted to do it to every lifelong heater smoking, lung cancer, heart disease plagued motherfucker that contributed to the consumption of the billions and billions of dollars of health insurance money that sent our health care system into the shitter.

Go fuck yourself, you slack jawed, half wit.

Havana Sugar King wrote: No, actually I've wanted to do it to every lung cancer, heart disease plagued motherfucker that contributed to the consumption of the billions and billions of dollars of health insurance money that sent our health care system into the shitter.

Bwah!

The triumphant return of Jimmy Meds!

Havana Sugar King wrote: Go fuck yourself, you slack jawed, half wit.

Btw, I told you to GFY first, and there was no need for a comma' between "slack jawed" and "half wit".

Other than that, you're really bring the lumber.

Havana Sugar King wrote: Go fuck yourself, you slack jawed, half wit.

Btw, I told you to GFY first, and there was no need for a comma' between "slack jawed" and "half wit".

Other than that, you're really bringing the lumber.

Marlboro at one point was lacing their fucking cigarettes w chocolate to add to the addictive properties of their products. Chocolate releases a sexual stimulant of enzymes through you brain. You think these companies don't know what they are doing?

Havana Sugar King wrote:You think these companies don't know what they are doing?

Huh?

You went from wanting to shoot all people with lung/heart disease to wanting talk about how manipulative Phillip Morris has been with chocolate?

Oh, ok...

Havana Sugar King wrote:I take it you're not this board's best and brightest.

He doesn't troll, if that's what you mean.

But good luck.

Havana Sugar King wrote:Marlboro at one point was lacing their fucking cigarettes w chocolate to add to the addictive properties of their products. Chocolate releases a sexual stimulant of enzymes through you brain. You think these companies don't know what they are doing?

They'd have to, Marlboros suck. Now if they had vodka laced Camels, that would kick ass.





And for a record, you're a fucking idiot.

War Wagon wrote:

Havana Sugar King wrote:You think these companies don't know what they are doing?

Huh?

You went from wanting to shoot all people with lung/heart disease to wanting talk about how manipulative Phillip Morris has been with chocolate?

Oh, ok...

This is my point, War Wagon. I am of Gen X. I have grown up knowing the danger of cigarette smoking. Being even slightly consciensous will serve you well. If you continue to smoke, you are a fucking idiot. I chose not to smoke. I'll have to pick up the check for all you idiots.

Havana Sugar King wrote: I am of Gen X.

I told you fuckers we need to raise the voting age.

Mace wrote:And I'm guessing that your next door neighbor dipped his dick in chocolate so you'd become addicted to sucking cock at a very young age. What's your point? And what does any of that have to do with you wanting to shoot "cancer addled" people like "a horse with a broken leg"? Fuckin' moron.

Mace

I'll bet you can play the fuck out of a banjo.

Mace wrote:

Havana Sugar King wrote:

Mace wrote:And I'm guessing that your next door neighbor dipped his dick in chocolate so you'd become addicted to sucking cock at a very young age. What's your point? And what does any of that have to do with you wanting to shoot "cancer addled" people like "a horse with a broken leg"? Fuckin' moron.

Mace

I'll bet you can play the fuck out of a banjo.

Nawww, I believe you're thinking of Goobs. Maybe you should read more and post less....or, better yet, just stop posting. This board has its quota of self absorbed Gen Xers, so your services aren't really needed. Now why don't you get back to your Play Station 2.

Mace

Seriously, Mace. I read your posts and I can't help but hear the voice of Cooter from Dukes of Hazard.

Havana Sugar King wrote: This is my point...

Dude, you started out saying that sick smokers should be shot, you even got Magoo to give you some props. Not bad, Mgo is usually spot on. Not this time, but I'm sure you got a rush out of that.

Then after Mace and I pile-drived you for being a sanctimonious dumbfuck, you started talking about... chocolate... and health care costs.

Backpedal much?

You should have read the entire thread instead of the few posts that got your dander up. I'd recommend particularly that you read Mike the Lab Rats posts. Even though I tend to disagree with him, at least he postulates a compelling argument. He makes a point.

You, on the other hand... you couldn't make a decent point if Mace installed you on his barn as a weathervane

Mace wrote:

Havana Sugar King wrote: Seriously, Mace. I read your posts and I can't help but hear the voice of Cooter from Dukes of Hazard.

I don't sound nothin' like Cooter.....more like Uncle Jessie or maybe Waylon Jennings when he's gettin' it on with Daisy.

Mace

I sorta hope that you are this board's best and brightest. I'll be running this place in no time.

Mace wrote: LOL! Yep, we created the TROTS Forum for folks just like you. I'll slip in there to read all of your posts.

Mace

See, there again. Your post sucked. Unfunny, vindictive, off topic, pure shit. It's practically unreadable. But when I read it like I'm a dumb, toothless, strawberry picking yokal. Waaaaay funnier.

Havana Sugar King wrote:

Mace wrote:And I'm guessing that your next door neighbor dipped his dick in chocolate so you'd become addicted to sucking cock at a very young age. What's your point? And what does any of that have to do with you wanting to shoot "cancer addled" people like "a horse with a broken leg"? Fuckin' moron.

Mace

I'll bet you can play the fuck out of a banjo.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

Play "From The Land of Sky-Blue Water" for me.

PSUFAN wrote:

Havana Sugar King wrote:

Mace wrote:And I'm guessing that your next door neighbor dipped his dick in chocolate so you'd become addicted to sucking cock at a very young age. What's your point? And what does any of that have to do with you wanting to shoot "cancer addled" people like "a horse with a broken leg"? Fuckin' moron.

Mace

I'll bet you can play the fuck out of a banjo.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

Play "From The Land of Sky-Blue Water" for me.

Hay, Mace. I just found you work.

War Wagon wrote:

Havana Sugar King wrote: This is my point...

Dude, you started out saying that sick smokers should be shot, you even got Magoo to give you some props. Not bad, Mgo is usually spot on. Not this time, but I'm sure you got a rush out of that.

Then after Mace and I pile-drived you for being a sanctimonious dumbfuck, you started talking about... chocolate... and health care costs.

Backpedal much?

You should have read the entire thread instead of the few posts that got your dander up. I'd recommend particularly that you read Mike the Lab Rats posts. Even though I tend to disagree with him, at least he postulates a compelling argument. He makes a point.

You, on the other hand... you couldn't make a decent point if Mace installed you on his barn as a weathervane

What backpedal? Evidently what's lacking here are your skills of comprehension. Yeah, I read as much of this thread as I could before the idiocy overwhelmed me. Don't step to me w your semantics smack and act you've got vision where the world wears blinders. I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. If you advocate smoking. You are a fucking moron. You are inhaling a cancerous toxin into your body. You are going to ultimately cause great stress and burden on the rest of us. What part of that do you disagree with?